Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Share of Worldwide Tablet Shipments Falls Below 40% in 1Q 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yap, you quote an article that, like you, doesn't provide a single figure for Google.
His credibility grows a lot when he says that Android is losing market share and when he praises Nokia and Apple being long in AAPL and MSFT
MSFT is near its 52 week high and I'm up >20% in 4 months on that stock alone. AAPL I have no comment about because I already dumped it when I picked up MSFT.
The guy's points are valid. You don't agree with his points, then post what you disagree with instead of dismissing the whole thing. He's also being nice since he doesn't factor in the Motorola purchase. You factor in that 12 billion acquisition, which I'd argue was a protective acquisition to combat the effects of putting out Android, and Google is still in the red.
None of this has anything to do with the quality of Android as an OS. It's a quality OS but with no clear monetization strategy or reason for existing. It was unnecessary for Google to develop it to monetize off mobile in the first place and it's become a piece of IP every Google competitor from Samsung to Amazon to Baidu has been using against Google. It's like giving your enemy a gun to shoot you. Patent infringements from developing Android have made companies like MS rich. Basically every company except Google is making money off Android while Google spends money to keep it going.
These results shouldn't be a surprise knowing that Google has a history of spending a ton of money on developing stuff and worrying about the strategic, legal and monetary implications later. Usually it works out. With Android, I don't see how it has
No, the guy's points are not valid since he is wrong saying that Android market share is shrinking and his points are not valid since he doesn't provide a single figure.
Android existence has the same reasons that Apple Maps existence, not being at the expenses of their competitors.
You obviously didnt read my comment, but only glanced.
That $350 million made 97s number look worse than 96s, but in fact Apples situation was already turning around later in that year. There were actually a lot of non-usual expenses in 1997, related to a list of personnel changes.
If you doubt it, you can sure go dig the numbers.
It depends on how you understand the word near. Sliding down from a high hill at a uncontrollable speed can be regarded as already near to death, but it seems that you dont agree with this definition. I guess in your mind, even falling off a 5-story building cannot be defined as near to death, instead you would say, you can only claim that after you see how bad he gets hurt hitting the ground.
I understood your comment just fine. Coincidentally, I'm sure, mid-1997 is when they canceled the clone program.
I did look up numbers and posted them here. You have provided no evidence to support your claim.
The only two years in the 90s (ever?) that Apple lost money were the two years that they allowed Mac clones.
Increasing profits is not "near" bankrupt by any understanding of the word.
I dont predict that to happen any time soon, either. I am talking about a trend and a likely result of that trend. With the current trend, Android is having the 85%+ commanding share in 3 years. Then, 5 years from now, a lot of stuff (apps, web sites, or whatever new things common at that time) will be Android only. At last, 8 years from now, many developers will start to discontinue their iOS support.
Sure, iOS still gets a good developer support at present, partly because they might still earn more money on iOS than on Android, but also because a lot of them started their development before Android got the lion of share. Dont forget the factor of inertia.
Which trend is that? Can you show actual numbers?
For example, here is the current market share trend for the iPhone according to IDC.
2009 14.5%
2010 15.7%
2011 18.8%
2012 25.5%
http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111
http://macdailynews.com/2013/01/25/idc-apple-took-25-1-of-worldwide-smartphone-market-in-2012/
Which ignores the fact that "Android" isn't a single platform.
Android market share is going up for sure... but I'm not seeing developer support for iOS waning as a result.
There are TONS of Android phones that are being purchased to replace featurephones. Some might not have huge data plans either.
Like I said... Android already has 70% of the market... how radically different will the app landscape be if Android reaches 85% of the market?
Plus... all customers aren't created equally.
An iOS developer has a very good chance of selling an app to an iPhone user with the latest version of the OS and fairly decent hardware. An iPhone 4 is still a very capable piece of hardware that will run pretty much any app you can throw at it.
On the other hand... an Android developer is still wrestling with the fact that people have phones with old operating systems, pitiful screens and slow processors. Even in 5 years the bulk of Android phones will be extremely cheap and underpowered phones.
What good is Android having 85% market share when a large percentage of those phones are pure junk?
That's why I keep saying a developer needs to look at the number of people who will actually buy your app or whose hardware can actually run your app.
It's not the entire 85%... "Android" isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
There is no benefit whatsoever to any android manufacturer because of marketshare. The only company that's doing well is samsung and that has nothing to do with market share.
Completely useless metric, and ios is in no trouble of developer attrition. If it hasn't happened as android leaped from near zero to 75% share it ain't happening.
Completely useless metric, and ios is in no trouble of developer attrition. If it hasn't happened as android leaped from near zero to 75% share it ain't happening.
I see plenty of numbers there, along with charts and sources. The only thing that's not shown is simulation data because their simulations are proprietary. Let me summarize for you.
His point on marketshare is that new phone Android marketshare has shrunk from 2011 EOY to 2012 EOY. Which it did. He's not talking about mobile or tablet or phone as a whole, just the premium phone space occupied by brands like the Galaxy 3 for that year
That leads him to conclude in the smartphone market, Android's rising penetration is not due to phones like the Galaxy, but due to it owning the budget space. You can see this pattern in the tablet market. You add cheap whitebox tablets to the mix and all of a sudden Android marketshare skyrockets 10%.
This budget space is unfortunate for Google's monetization hopes because it's full of low end or whitebox phones owned by people who can't afford a data plan to do a search or don't care about the internet. No internet access = Google makes no money. Which is why everyone on this thread who says OS marketshare is irrelevant is right.
The only thing Apple Maps and Android have in common is they're product complements that failed at what they were supposed to do.
Android has not given Google leverage over competitors. Instead it's given competitors leverage over Google. Examples?
- Enabling Samsung to dominate the smartphone market to the point Google now has to put out that X phone to challenge Samsung's power
- Giving Microsoft a steady revenue stream through patent licensing
- Enabling Amazon to become a solid player in the tablet market while totally removing Google's profit layer
- Giving Baidu a tool to challenge Google in the Chinese mobile ad space
- Forcing Google to put down 12 billion for Motorola to curb that mobile patent landslide and enter the hardware market because Android OEM's are now gaining leverage
Can show a single factual number for Android?
Wrong Android marketshare grown. Can you show a single number to show that marketshare shrunk for high end Androids?
Then it is clear that you don't get it
Apart that it is only wishful thinking, it has nothing to do with your claim that Google doesn't have any monetization from Android
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a number from early 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android
$550 million in revenue for Google from Android in the first 3.5 years. I'm pretty sure their expenses are slightly more than that.
(I'm guessing from your rant that you didn't bother to register for Seeking Alpha in order to see the rest of the article that included lots of numbers.)
Last edited:
Here's a number from early 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android
$550 million in revenue for Google from Android in the first 3.5 years. I'm pretty sure their expenses are slightly more than that.
I can't believe anyone actually wasted time trying to argue that android might be profitable for Google. Seems like an incredible waste of time
Here's a number from early 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android
$550 million in revenue for Google from Android in the first 3.5 years. I'm pretty sure their expenses are slightly more than that.
Please, at least you can link an original article and not one debunked.
You guessed wrong, but I will he glad if you can link to one of those numbers.
Source that it was debunked? Making stuff up again? Let me guess you're going to ask me to prove it wasn't debunked right?
As much as you demand sources and numbers, you don't seem to feel the need to present any yourself. I've never seen any numbers that suggest that Android has been profitable for Google. Have you?
You want me to link to a number in an article that was already linked to? If you read it, wouldn't you see them yourself?Here's a quote that Liquorpuki referenced that you dismissed without evidence or understanding:
"Higher end Android phones, like the Samsung Galaxy S3, ship in a volume similar to Apple's iPhone 4s. Last quarter reports show 18m Galaxy S3s were sold versus 16.4m iPhone 4s's. Certainly not more than double the number of iOS numbers. It is the low-end phones that give Android 60% plus installed market share. Recent estimates show Android's share of new phones at just under 40% in 2012, compared to over 50% in 2011."
That report from The Guardian has been debunked multiple times in this forum, and you know it. I don't know why you put it another time
http://marketingland.com/no-google-doesnt-make-four-times-more-off-the-iphone-vs-android-9017
You are the ones claiming without doubt that it is not profitable. Can you back your claims yes or not?
I want that you link just a number about Android revenues, can you give just one or do you just have vague estimates? It is a simple yes or not answer
"Higher end Android phones, like the Samsung Galaxy S3, ship in a volume similar to Apple's iPhone 4s. Last quarter reports show 18m Galaxy S3s were sold versus 16.4m iPhone 4s's. Certainly not more than double the number of iOS numbers. It is the low-end phones that give Android 60% plus installed market share. Recent estimates show Android's share of new phones at just under 40% in 2012, compared to over 50% in 2011."[/QUOTE]
This link is a report about add impressions for ONE ad company, it doesn't have to do anything about smartphones marketshare.
Perhaps the ones that don't understand are all of you. That seekingalpha report claimed that Android SMARTPHONE marketshare shrunk and this is totally false.
----------
Source that it was debunked? Making stuff up again? Let me guess you're going to ask me to prove it wasn't debunked right?
http://marketingland.com/no-google-doesnt-make-four-times-more-off-the-iphone-vs-android-9017
Let me guess, voonyx, you're going to be wrong another time
I understood your comment just fine. Coincidentally, I'm sure, mid-1997 is when they canceled the clone program.
I did look up numbers and posted them here. You have provided no evidence to support your claim.
The only two years in the 90s (ever?) that Apple lost money were the two years that they allowed Mac clones.
Increasing profits is not "near" bankrupt by any understanding of the word.
Alas, you don't seem to understand what "superficial" means.
For a company of Apple's size, that level of profit fluctuation means nothing for real. There are so many different things changed for Apple in those years, and you keep trying to connect one single thing with the overall result. "dig" means to have you analyze the detail data.
Actually, to let you understand your error, there is one thing easier you can do, just find out how many clones there had ever been produced and sold during that period of time, then you will know they could not possibly make that big difference in effect as you wished.
When I walk into my local Starbucks the only tablets I see being used are iPads so that must say something people like iOS. I love my iPad and wouldn't use any other tablet. But just because that works for me doesn't mean it works for everybody. I work for Best Buy and people always ask me what I recommend and really I like to look at the whole picture of what the needs are and the budget they have. What works for me may not work for everyone. I am constantly selling android but doesn't mean I am not selling tons on the iOS side either lol. But at the end of the day iOS does still seem to sell very well. I mean the s4 has been out a few weeks and I am still selling tons of iPhones. Don't know what that means for apple but for know it seems they are in pretty good shape for now.
Whatever it is I'm supposed to get, I'm sure you're not gonna tell me
Criticizing Android's business model is not rooting for it to fail. I like Google, I think they're innovative and think they're doing some big things in X Lab. But no matter how popular Android is, it doesn't make any business sense. And if you knew what the point of it was, you would've told me already instead of using the I'm taking my ball and going home argument.
That article doesn't debunk anything, just rides on the fact nobody don't know what the true numbers are. We don't know the numbers because Google doesn't release Android revenue, they roll it up ambiguously into mobile revenue. So that author basically does what you do. Says I don't like this number and dismisses everything.
On top of that the author wants to include search revenue generated from Android phones as Android revenue to up that $550 million figure. That's dumb because Google didn't need to put out an OS to generate mobile ad revenue. Even if Android never existed and the only mobile OS's on the market were iOS, WP8 and BB10, they'd still generate mobile ad revenue because Google Services are platform agnostic.
Now it's possible Android penetration has positively affected Google's mobile ad revenue stream but there's no proof the increase in revenue offsets the cost of developing and maintaining a free OS. And if you consider how putting out Android has led to them to have to spend money on defensive acquisitions like that 12 billion Motorola purchase, that OS has put them in the red.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amazingly, I don't read every forum post that you do. I've never seen it debunked. As the previous poster pointed out, that article doesn't "debunk" the Android revenue number at all. It simply questions the accuracy. Legitimate questions. But no reason to think it isn't in the right ballpark.
(It does reasonably debunk the Google revenue from iPhone numbers though!)
No one is claiming "without a doubt". You just threw that in there to try and make your argument easier. But all information we have would seem to indicate Android hasn't moved out of the red yet for Google.
See, I couldn't read your mind as to what number you wanted. Vague estimates are all we have. Doesn't mean we can't draw likely conclusions. Kinda like you did with the "debunking" article.
Exactly.
No, I didn't claim that at all. Nor did the Seeking Alpha article.
Yet again, you provide no evidence and ignore the argument. I never made any claim as to how much the clones affected Apple's losses. I'm sure Windows 95 was a huge factor. But your claim that they had no effect is unlikely based on the "coincidence" that Apple's losses began the year after they were introduced. If you'd like to provide evidence to back your claim, go ahead.
But, again, the actual point that I made was that your claim that "Apple was already near to bankrupt when it started to allow for Mac clones" was demonstrably false. $5 billion in assets (including $1.3 billion in cash) and increasing profits is not "near to bankrupt" by any definition, superficial or otherwise.